This article covers the moral struggle to find safety and fairness in church and society relating to base needs and secondary needs of people within those realms. 

“Moral talk is often rather repugnant. Leveling moral accusations, expressing moral indignation, passing moral judgement, allotting the blame, administering moral reproof, justifying oneself, and, above all, moralizing- who can enjoy such talk? And who can like or trust those addicted to it? The most outspoken critics of their neighbors’ morals are usually [people] who wish to ensure that nobody should enjoy the good things in life which they themselves have missed and [people] who confuse the right and the good with their own advancement.”

The Moral Point Of View: A Rational Basis Of Ethics by Kurt Baier

I have been fascinated by the political events that recently happened in New Zealand.  Social media planted clips of Members of Parliament giving powerful speeches and performing the Haka in my feed. Chloe Swarbrick’s speech is moving. One of the creators of the bill these Maori or pro Maori MPs are against, is part Maori himself. To my understanding the bill is dead, but what it was trying to do is similar to what we see in U.S. politics and in our religion.

People want what is fair for everyone across the board…or do they?

It takes a very disciplined, humble person to put aside personal wants for the greater good. It goes against our instincts of survival actually. I find that these deeper instincts to survive…avoiding scarcity for ourselves and our immediate family is what drives our decisions. 

I’ve been reading Mormon Women At The Crossroads by Caroline Kline. I’ve been trying to see where I am putting my desires for fairness above others and have come up with some conclusions. 

People seek safety.

Like Maslow and what he points out in his “Hierarchy of needs”, people seek safety for their bodies, then their surroundings, relationships, and their minds until they have such actual physical comfort and true social and mental stability, that they are capable of handling all negative and positive encounters with a sound mental frame of mind, the nirvana or “self actualization”.

If we encroach on a need that someone else has not had fulfilled, we should expect backlash. If we already have a need met, but then through our laws or religion, make it harder for someone else to obtain a baser need, we should expect backlash from those we are harming or hindering.

How we hold people back from baser needs:

The bill in New Zealand I mentioned earlier is an example of this. In an attempt to make laws of the land more “equal”, David Seymour proposed a bill he said would help everyone. Those who lived and saw inequality more acutely disagreed.

The Moari have designated seats in Parliament. They do not have to compete against other New Zealanders, just other Maori-which some find unfair-because it creates less spots available for the general public, who are not Maori, and are the majority. The Maori then feel that taking away their guaranteed spots will lessen the amount of Maori in government and take away their representation. (Remember, the majority colonized the Maori…forced them into their governance.)

I could cite many bills in the US that demonstrate this as well, such as how voting districts have been drawn, abortion rights, any proposed LGBTQ right, the Equal Right Amendment, the rights that will be challenged in the “Project 2025” proposal (this is skirting the issue of America’s colonization and how there is next to zero representation in government by those indigenous to what is now The United States).

All the recent “Executive Orders”……

What some lawmakers deem as fair and good for all, can be a literal attack on someone’s baser physical need or an attack on someone’s feeling of safety in a next level mental/social need. It is a way to ease an idea that is not making sense in their own mind (yes it goes both ways).

Religion dictates to us what our next level needs are:

I think the church gave me a different pyramid. It told me that my feelings of safety and security were only secure if there were temple sealings making them so. I gained self esteem by checking boxes people were watching me check and my future self actualization could only be achieved through highest degree celestial glory…

I have been fighting these mental battles trying to gain my own personal authority back and speaking out against what I feel is an attack on my mental and spiritual well being while other people of my faith hold onto some of the same things because it gives them that stability mentally and even physically.

Caroline, in her book, mentions that some women in our faith, particularly outside of the USA, gain physical safety in what the LDS church teaches. Their husbands were abusive until they encountered the tenants that helped them espouse benevolent patriarchy. 

When I attack what benevolent patriarchy has done to me mentally, I am attacking what is keeping these women safe physically.

What I want to fix and change and even throw out of existence, is keeping my fellow sisters safe.

The system within the LDS framework is hurting other people, other minorities in and out of the US; LGBTQ people for example. But the argument could be made that their needs are not base needs of survival, but then again they could be argued that they are.

So we are back to square one, I have solved nothing, but recognized something.

A commenter (@puttingupwitha) on an Exponent Instagram post said, “Mormon feminism highlights inequities within the church, but often lacks a clear path for correcting them. Raised awareness without a way to change the structure can create heavy burdens. I think it is still necessary, but then what? Stay and live with cognitive dissonance, stay and voice concerns with little change, or leave?”

So what do we do? 

Food for thought on this subject: Why Women of Color Are Exhausted

Educate yourself of ways to actively be anti-racist

*Other related article